Welcome kameraden,
I have journeyed across the entire political spectrum through my life. I have always been interested in politics and especially 'fringe' politics, since I was around 13 (im an oldfag now). My 'progress' on the political spectrum has gone from bottom left to top left to bottom right to top right. Some I progressed through fairly quickly (I wasn't really a 'libertarian' for very long) and that's a bit simplistic. I never really felt at home anywhere until I started really, honestly, studying genuinely far-right or third position/alternative politics. I don't think I was really open to many of those ideas until I started becoming interested in the sciences, as Rockwell said NatSoc is really just nature applied to politics.
Converting different people requires different types of talking points: I'm more or less convinced that your political outlook has more to do with your personality than anything else, and people with interest in 'fringe' political ideas are much more ripe for conversion and dialogue than people with 'conventional/mainstream' ideas.People with conventional/mainstream ideas are usually just interesting in conforming to social norms If we ever took power within a generation these same people would come over to our ideas, because most people aren't actually interested in philosophical truth/higher ideals. It's also important to note certain people posture as being 'fringe/outsiders' who really aren't. Most (but not all) anarcho-kiddies are really just liberals, the fact that they want corporations and govt. to go after people with wrong-think makes this pretty obvious, most don't even believe their own ideas in any practical and meaningful way.
For Marxists, I have found the following talking points to be the most effective:
Anti-Imperialism: The Imperial idea is fundamentally a universalist one, and has as its goal the leveling of all peoples under a specific way of thinking and way of life. Many Marxists are fundamentally anti-imperialist and will even support fairly nationalistic movements (Vietnam, Korea, a whole host of South American and African 'national' movements) but are unwilling to recognize their own ideology has the same universal leveling effect and trends towards a global monoculture, so long as it presents itself a 'proletarian' rather than bourgeois. They'll support poor nations breaking from the global system and international capital, but won't extend the same to
Global banking and capitalism: Here is a point where we share a lot of common ground, but it's a difference in focus. The Marxist viewed the factory owner as the enemy whereas NatSocs simply direct the gaze one level higher and recognize the global finance cartels as the true rulers of society. This is also a good place to talk about the role of bankers in the various leftist revolutions, if they seem open to that information. This is somewhere that libertarians actually kind of half get-it, the understanding that ability to manipulate interest rates gives you almost infinite financial power and this is the major flaw and breaking point for the system. What libertarians wont do is take it to the next step and look at what those banking institutions are actually DOING with that infinite money, because that would end in a criticism of the liberal culture entails.
The catastrophe of Marxist systems: Marx was actually quite good in criticizing capitalism at a systematic level, the problem comes in implementing his solutions. I could wax and wane about why I think these have failed (I think they fail at a fundamental level, they fail to understand the human person and without this cannot scale-up to the economic level) but the reality is that they did fail. I think most Marxists hold onto Marxism because they believe it is the only alternative. You need to break them of their affection to Marxism and at the same time show them that other real alternatives to neoliberal capitalism exist. The Germans did this pretty effectively, and some of it was quite easy for them to be honest. The Soviet Union was a rising power that was attacking Eastern European countries at the time, Hitler during one of his speeches basically told his soldiers on the Eastern front to go observe and interact with the Russians and bring back news, because he knew they'd tell people how messed up the Soviet Union was by observing it with their own eyes. We're now fighting against a sort of historical revisionism that the Marxists are trying to do.
On another note, I find it's far easier to convert or at least have discussion with Euro-Marxists. I have no idea how to even engage with Maoists because I never really got into Maoism myself. They seem like an odd political fringe but they seem to be growing, in part because of the rise of Chinese power (despite the fact that they are in no way Maoist anymore, the reformists basically gutted that system and doing so is the only reason China is still around).
Attached: chairforce.jpg (500x666, 202.03K)
